Colin, could you give an indication of what "way off" represents? And over what distance?

Then can you elaborate on what you are using to record the actual elevation gain or loss?

A link to an example of a route would help to check the underlying data, too.

If you're not aware this is from the FAQs - look for Why is the total climb different......

 The fact of the matter is that these things are notoriously difficult to both predict and record. I'd imagine that the urban environment is different to the open road environment, too. 

As you have seen, two planners can predict elevation differently, and two gps units can record different elevation gains/losses for the same route. 

Given we are talking about two completely different parts of the world the first thing I would suggest is to never, that is never rely on Google, especially for bike routing. In any part of the world. As a guideline, an indication, a supplement to other services it's fine. It has lots of uses for foreign travel but its information for bikes is, at times, appalling.

Given that CT is UK based I'd trust it more than any other planner in the UK (and in most other places, too). Also, given that you're looking at canal routes I'm thinking that elevation is not such an important factor - even in Scotland. I know surfing is big in Oz but Scottish canals aren't steep enough for surfing :-) Things like bridges and tunnels can mess up elevation calculations, too.

What is probably more relevant for your query is the importance of being familiar with whatever planner you use, to understand the general meaning and thrust of what it is telling you, rather than expect it to be 100% accurate - especially in relation to elevation. Swapping between different apps will not be helpful. Been there, done that and I ain't going back! :-)

A part of all this is to "know" what a climb of say 1000m feels like. 1000m over 10km is a different beast to 1000m over 100km. Ditto the time of the day. A 1000m climb at the start of the day may feel a whole lot easier than a steep 200m at the end of a long day.

Personally, if I was contemplating Scottish canals my top two concerns would be surfaces and weather. Bad weather, dodgy surfaces and water to one side can be an interesting experience! :-)

I have always used Osmand, an application, as my backup planner. It works offline, can store vast amounts of (personalised) data and is incredibly useful - as a backup (ironically, its bike routing can be a bit off). It displays very useful elevation data in a different format to CT and gives clear gradient information too - sometimes more important than elevation - that I have found to be very useful in different parts of the world. Unfortunately, it is a bugger to master.

If you really, really want to drill down it may be possible to track down completed rides that will have the elevation recorded. CrazyGuyOnABike has a great map search facility, sites like RWGPS and Komoot allow you to search for routes. UK based fora may offer up some local knowledge. Cycling UK has one, CycleChat is friendlier.

First things first, it's generally not a good idea to post information about your home address online. Perhaps ask Richard to remove it?

Colin, have you considered the differences in scale on the maps provided? Honestly, "I found" this or that really doesn't cut it without a consistent measurement placed against both.  

I can't make out the elevation gain/loss numbers on your screenshots. What do they say?

If you really want to test it out borrow a gps unit or download Strava/Komoot onto a smartphone. Ride the route several times in both directions, recording each ride separately. Calculate the average elevation gain and loss and compare to Google and CT. And you'll have your answer - for that 7.6 km section of Melbourne.

I think it's great that you are trying to get a feel for this but I am doubtful of what a short, urban ride can extrapolate for a longer ride on the other side of the world.

In your shoes, I'd be trying to replicate the kind of cycling I expect to encounter. That may mean a drive or a train ride to some mountains. Or a multistorey carpark! I'd be packing the same gear on my bike as I'd expect to be carrying and seeing how it all feels. That may mean going out in whatever inhospitable weather Mother Nature throws at me. That way, if it hits me again far from home, I know I can deal with it - because I already have. To me, that's far more important than a number on a screen.

I would not be fretting about distance over speed to give me time. I'd be hunting for inspiration. I love reading about a place as I ride through - and Scotland isn't short of tales - some of them very tall! :-) 

Climbing makes most of us slower. Mind you, there's normally a descent that speeds most of us back up! (Unless the surface is dodgy!) You know you can change your average speed and daily distance or time in your profile, right? For me, getting on the bike offers a tremendous freedom. I hate to be under the cosh. Giving myself the time to stop at a place that speaks to me, to feel it as opposed to just seeing it, is one of the greatest things I can gift myself. Arriving ahead of schedule means more time for exploring. You like your pints - wait until you get a cask ale and a bridie into your hands! 

My thoughts are simple: Google Maps is not to be relied upon.

Riding a bike in a foreign (or even not so foreign) place can be so much more than kms, meters and hours.

Thanks so much for your comments HobbsonTour.  Agree with everything you have said (except maybe the part about google maps - I kinda need to prove this to myself one way or the other but I am forewarned by your views).  And very much agree that this short ride is not a good basis for extrapolation.  I do intend to do many more and much longer ones.  Main reason for the focus on schedule is that I am organising for a group and we have quite an ambitious list of places was want to go.  I certainly have allowed time for many stops and lots of slack in the schedule.  That is why I really want to try to get good estimates.  I think they will allow me to plan better to allow for all the stops and enjoyment.  Thanks again, much appreciated.

Thanks also for the advice on home address.  It is so easy to give information away.  I have deleted the post.

Cheers

Colin

My suggestion is to seek out local knowledge on some of the UK fora. CT makes it easy to post a route (just make sure it's not labelled as private) by pasting the URL. Or even post here - someone with local knowledge may be able to help.

However, I see that you're organising a group tour so I'm thinking that exact elevation data may be the least of your worries! :-)

A group tour comes close to my definition of Hell unless I have the independence (in the form of the route) to go at my own pace and appreciate the things I want to appreciate. It's better for everyone else too!

Scotland is beautiful but depending on where you are (and when) can be prone to wind, rain and fearsome, ravenous midgies. Waiting around for someone to catch up can be a very unpleasant experience. Midgies can reduce the most placid, calm human being to a horrifying beast! :-)

I'm struck by the massive distance (and contrast) between where you are and where you're going. In the most general sense, I'd suggest not letting "Melbourne you" make too many decisions. "Scotland you" may not thank you for them later.

Thanks for all of that (both of you!) – very useful. After some investigation it turned out that c.t was too aggressively smoothing elevation changes in low-lying areas, and Melbourne is of course a pretty low-lying area. I’ve tweaked that and it’s a little more realistic now.

On the Scottish canals: in theory, cycle.travel has some extra logic to come up with more realistic elevation estimates on towpaths. But I just checked the Forth & Clyde and that wasn’t actually marked as a towpath in OSM, just a generic cycleway, so… so much for that! I can happily report though that there’s only three places with any significant climb: Banavie (Neptune’s Staircase), Fort Augustus and the Falkirk Wheel. 😀

Thanks very much Richard for having a look.  Appreciate it.